Spirituality
10 Feb 19
- Joined
- 16 Jan 07
- Moves
- 95105
13 Feb 19
1 edit
@kellyjay saidAre you telling me that molecules bonding are not effected by their environment?
Working out probabilities is a straight up math problem, it doesn’t have to be about the past, present, or future.
What we assume historically may or may not be true. It doesn’t have to be about how you figure it out your math, that could be spot on, yet based on bad assumptions. So not the same thing!
You can look up how they came up the figures it isn’t that difficult.
13 Feb 19
@stellspalfie saidNo
Are you telling me that molecules bonding are not effected by their environment?
- Joined
- 16 Jan 07
- Moves
- 95105
13 Feb 19
@kellyjay saidSo its fair to say we would need to know what the environmental conditions were and when they formed to be able to accurately calculate the probability of them forming?
No
13 Feb 19
@stellspalfie saidIf we don’t know all the variables then we are missing something.
So its fair to say we would need to know what the environmental conditions were and when they formed to be able to accurately calculate the probability of them forming?
14 Feb 19
@stellspalfie saidWe also need to know what is required before we even concern ourselves with the possible good or bad environmental conditions.
So its fair to say we would need to know what the environmental conditions were and when they formed to be able to accurately calculate the probability of them forming?
14 Feb 19
@kellyjay saidSorry if we don't know all the variables we don't know if we are missing something.
If we don’t know all the variables then we are missing something.
For that matter if there is something there hindering, or speeding things up, we just don't know.
- Joined
- 16 Jan 07
- Moves
- 95105
14 Feb 19
@kellyjay saidSo you understand now that if we cannot model the correct conditions for weather a million years ago, we cannot model the conditions for organic molecules clumping together a billion years ago.
Sorry if we don't know all the variables we don't know if we are missing something.
For that matter if there is something there hindering, or speeding things up, we just don't know.
But of course you will not accept this, cue random tangent post.
14 Feb 19
@kellyjay saidYep.
A disruption in any generation from one life form into the next game over, start your calculations there and tell me the odds.
Game over.
It is called extinction.
Many, many more species have gone extinct than live today.
14 Feb 19
@kellyjay saidIt’s as if the point has just whooshed right over your head again. Whether it’s deliberate or you are completely oblivious I’m really not sure. But it will have to wait till tomorrow now.
You don’t think I can pull up examples of human errors and bias changing outcomes?
14 Feb 19
@stellspalfie saidThe film removes all variables that could hinder success, then setup the perfect theoretical conditions for success to simulate the odds being overcome.
So you understand now that if we cannot model the correct conditions for weather a million years ago, we cannot model the conditions for organic molecules clumping together a billion years ago.
But of course you will not accept this, cue random tangent post.
When I bemoan the theory of abiogenesis it is always due to things removed, they are the show stoppers conditions not suitable for life, lack of the necessary ingredients all being in the same place at the same time.
What did you not like about the film you thought was being disingenuous?
14 Feb 19
@proper-knob saidWhat do you make of the odds of a protein forming by chance, you disagree with the math?
It’s as if the point has just whooshed right over your head again. Whether it’s deliberate or you are completely oblivious I’m really not sure. But it will have to wait till tomorrow now.
14 Feb 19
@KellyJay
I have no idea. I don’t really see what relevance that has to our discussion of your religious beliefs and the impact they have on mankind’s understanding of the universe and the planet we live on.
- Joined
- 16 Jan 07
- Moves
- 95105
14 Feb 19
1 edit
@kellyjay saidAnd just to clarify the film makers know ALL the variables - correct?
The film removes all variables that could hinder success, then setup the perfect theoretical conditions for success to simulate the odds being overcome.
When I bemoan the theory of abiogenesis it is always due to things removed, they are the show stoppers conditions not suitable for life, lack of the necessary ingredients all being in the same place at the same time.
What did you not like about the film you thought was being disingenuous?
15 Feb 19
@proper-knob saidWhat religious doctrine was in the either video that I displayed. This is purely about probabilities and numbers, you disagree with the likelihood based on anything you have seen, or how any of the variables were put together?
@KellyJay
I have no idea. I don’t really see what relevance that has to our discussion of your religious beliefs and the impact they have on mankind’s understanding of the universe and the planet we live on.
You have not answered my question about the variables, you going to?
15 Feb 19
@stellspalfie saidThey were dealing with the numbers they knew, and kept the desired outcome to just a single protein. The second video talks about a small sliver of the required variables, you disagree with the presentation of how the numbers arrived at?
And just to clarify the film makers know ALL the variables - correct?